Legal Opinion

Adams v. Crawford

California Supreme Court

Decided April 9, 1897No. L. A. No. 216PublishedCited by 27 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County and from an order denying a new trial. J. S. Noyes, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Haynes, C.

This action is prosecuted by the plaintiff to quiet title to a certain mining claim called the “Adams mine.” The cause was tried by the court without a jury, and written findings were filed in favor of the defendants. This appeal is from the judgment and from an order denying the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

Appellant’s first contention is that the court erred in denying plaintiff a trial by jury. The record shows that on the day of the trial no jury was in attendance, nor had any been demanded or ordered for the trial of said cause; that after the cause was called for trial…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Pennie v. HildrethCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Landregan v. PeppinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Cooley v. Miller & LuxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  2. Montecito Valley Water Co. v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  3. Bloss v. RahillyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  4. People v. HernandezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  5. People v. Metropolitan Surety Co.California Supreme Court · 1912

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API